Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

The pattern is obvious and highly consistent: false, absurd, and disingenuous scaremongering and gaslighting based on scientifically incompetent misuse of cherry-picked data that do not mean what they are claimed to mean.

 

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you.

You are basing your posts on the unsupported and objectively false opinion that climatology is the same as the CO2 narrative. It just isn't.

 

He gave the source, and you ignored it, as usual.

 

You can NOT POSSIBLY support this conspiracy theory.

 

Okay - prove it!

 

Climatology vs "CO2 narrative"?? I don't even know what that could possibly mean.

 

And status and career advancement. People have been gaining those things by scaring other people about lots of things for thousands of years.

Indicating a return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

Exactly.

Right. It's very much like what has been done in neoclassical economics. The goal is not to advance understanding but to prevent it.

 

Huh?? Prove what?

You are disgracing yourself.

 

What it means is obvious. Climatology is the scientific study of climate, while the CO2 narrative is anti-scientific propaganda, gaslighting, and scaremongering.

 

No, it's part of your faceplant.

 

Prove what?

 

My statement is factual - not theoretical. Here is one of a very great number of examples.

“As Scafetta and Vahrenholt point out, these two well documented periods provide an excellent scientific blind test of the solar-climate connection. They list many peer-reviewed studies that show the close connection between climate changes and solar activity. They correlate well in Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, China, Bhutan, and the Canadian Rocky Mountains.

During the Wolf, Spörer, and Maunder solar minima, the intermediate water layers of the North Atlantic cooled by 2-3 ° C, while the surface water in the tropical North Atlantic off Mauritania cooled by 1 ° C. On Sakhalin, Russia’s largest island, the lowest temperatures were recorded during the Maunder Solar Minimum. In Tasmania, Australia, proxies show cold periods during the Spörer and Maunder Solar Minima. Even in Antarctica, climate proxies correlate with repeated drops in solar activity.

Similar evidence shows that the Medieval Warm Period, which coincides with a solar maximum, was unusually warm around the world. Further, historical records and climate proxies show that solar minima and maxima correlate with precipitation around the world, including in the USA, Tibet, South America, India, China, Egypt, and elsewhere. The first page of Chapter 6 contains a quote from a review paper by Connolly et al. (including Scafetta) that was published after the IPCC deadline but came to a different conclusion about the potential role of the sun in the warming period since 1850. The paper discusses the current uncertainties regarding both solar and climate data, and concludes that the data on past solar activity and climate changes: “suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural)” 31

Thus, it appears that the conclusions presented in IPCC AR6 are consistent only with a portion of the published scientific literature, the portion that minimizes the role of the sun so as to maximize the anthropogenic component. The exact mechanisms for the climate/ solar correlation are unclear and the chapter lists and discusses several possible mechanisms. However, the correlation exists and for the IPCC to ignore it, and claim that modern climate change is 100% anthropogenic, simply because the solar connection cannot be explained is unacceptable.”

— The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An Analysis of AR6 by Marcel Crok, Andy May
https://a.co/4M56Zs3

 

It means what you believe is not based on climatology. It’s based on what journalists and politicians tell you.

 

I very much doubt @WillReadmore is someone who would confuse good science with bad journalism

 

Nice picture. Now please give us an actual reference and not just a picture. So we can see if it even takes into account something as basic as inflation.

You are aware of inflation, right? That is why even though "Gone With the Wind" does not appear on any of the "Top 50 grossing movies", it is still number one when the amount is adjusted for inflation. Another that does not appear in the top 50 is the original Star Wars. But it is still number 4, when adjusted for inflation.

So if you are really willing to stick by your pretty picture, have they taken inflation into consideration? Because the majority of your chart seems to actually be below inflation figures.

 

What is it with you and so many unscientific kinds that have such an aversion to actually providing references? You all post these pretty pictures, yet provide absolutely no references so we can even look into them for ourselves.

 

Prove that the IPCC was selectively ignoring research. Should be reasonably easy - take a span of time look at what papers were published in that time frame and compare it to the citation list in an equivalent IPCC report. If a significant number of papers in your list have failed to be included I will assist you in determining why I.e. was there a better study on the same subject that was included? Was the paper published in a peer reviewed paper etc etc etc

 

Your picture confirms none of that. It does not cover the number of disasters at all, only the cost.

Reference?

 

Don’t you know how to do a “reverse google image search? It is pretty easy but you CAN get the url from the picture if it has been uploaded correctly. In the case of Mamooths pic here is the url for where he got it
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=71

 

Hmmmmm. “The economist”

https://www.economist.com/finance-a...her-could-put-insurance-firms-out-of-business
A tutorial


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&...d=0CBEQ3YkBahcKEwio-I7akdmBAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQDw

 

But he routinely does. He just did by denying the facts presented on cost of weather related disasters as a percentage of GDP. He claims peer reviewed studies are incorrect and his unsubstantiated opinion is correct.

His beliefs mirror journalists opinions and conflict with peer reviewed science. He has no evidence for his beliefs. Even the IPCC analysis conflicts with his beliefs.

It looks like you are confusing journalist’s opinions with science in your above post.

I think I’ll stick with peer reviewed studies and pass on the opinions of insurance salesmen.

 

Oh! Goody a book! Let’s look at the authors qualifications because if they are purporting to critique research they need at least a base level education in how to do it

The first Author Marcel Crok - not a climate scientist in fact I cannot find where he has a science qualification beyond “studying chemistry”

The second author Andy May is a Petrophysicist translation - not a climate scientist

But I have found a critique of the book

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/05/08/clintel-report-bingo/

 

I just did. The details are in the reference (and many others) for your perusal.

 

Typical. Attack the source with witch-hunt tactics. Smear the source and avoid confronting the facts. It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic and illustrative of the world we live in today.

 

Well there are two sides to that story. You pick yours, I will pick mine. What you call well informed by government I call deception by government. It is the basic voide between left and right.